Tom Daschle on Principles & Values

Former Democratic Senator (SD); Secretary of H.H.S.-Designee

Defeated in 2004 as part of wider Republican victory

It wasn't just Bush's 2004 victory that lent credence to the notion that America was becoming more Republican in a fundamental way. In the Senate, Republicans swept six open seats in the South and increased their majority to 55-45. For some conservatives
the sweetest part of that outcome was the defeat of Senate leader Tom Daschle, a frequent Bush critic. Republicans had fared well in the House also, increasing their majority by three, to 232-203. Never had the party's future seemed more assured.

New Leadership for America PAC supports 3 candidates

Putting to use experience gained from my career in the House and Senate, I established New Leadership for America in 2005 as the nation faces incredible challenges to leadership. As a country, we need leaders who will make bold decisions in favor of all
Americans.

Reflecting the issues and goals important to me, New Leadership for America strives to further a progressive agenda that includes creating quality jobs for working people, protecting the promise of
Social Security, promoting equal opportunity for all Americans, increasing access to quality affordable health care, and ensuring every child can have a quality public education. Reaching these goals requires electing great
Democratic leaders to public office. New Leadership for America can foster these great candidates.

2002 Congressional election loss was disaster for Dems & USA

It is hard to overstate the disappointment and, yes, the despair that we--my Democratic colleagues and I--felt the morning after that 2002 election. The term "shellacked" was used more than once in press reports, and despite the narrowness of the results
that's just how we felt. How had this happened? Everyone, of course, had their own answers and were eager to share them:

We Democrats "had no message." We "ran without new ideas."

We offered "no difference between 'us' and 'them.' "
We had become victims of "centrist caution." We had become nothing more than "Republican Lite."

Our campaigns had been marked by "caution, vagueness, niche issues, and sloganeering."

We had lost our "soul."

We were "leaderless."

I knew that we needed not to panic. But neither could we deny that the consequences of this defeat, as narrow as it might have been, were disastrous, not just for the Democratic Party, but for the American people in terms of where they might now be led.

Considered running for president in wake of 2002 Dems loss

In December 2002, House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt came to visit my personal office, and we had a good long talk. First, we met with staff to discuss the aftermath of the Congressional election loss. Then, Dick asked if staff could be excused so that
he and I could talk privately. Dick then said that he had come to the conclusion that for him the way to move forward was to move on--and, hopefully, up. He told me he intended to give up his House leadership role and run for president.

I told him that
I, too, was weighing that same decision. If the political challenge we faced as Democrats was to truly help the people who we felt were being left out and left behind by this administration, the question was which would be the more effective role--that
of caucus leader or presidential candidate. I told him that I would make my decision within the next few weeks. Dick broke the silence. "Whatever you decide," he said, "you will always be my friend."

Post-2002 debate: move back to left, vs. move to center

Within our caucus a heated debate had begun that was echoed by pundits across the nation--namely, whether it was time for our Democratic Party to move back to the "Left," to reclaim the liberal roots from which we had steadily drifted away, or whether we
needed to move even more toward the "center" to break the partisan gridlock in Washington that so much of the American public rightfully detests.

On the one side--the liberal, progressive side--were voices urging that it was time to "stop
accommodating," to "reclaim our identity," to become "an opposition party worthy of the name."

On the other side--the moderate side--were the voices warning that we must "face reality," that with so many tightly contested elections, where victory or
defeat depends on a tiny percentage of "swing" voters, we can't afford to alienate those precious few voters by taking "extreme" positions.

I had my own thoughts even then about this argument. But it wasn't time for me to speak--not yet.

Liberals see government duty to solve problems

[When Nixon beat McGovern in 1972], "liberal" became a dirty word, one even most Democrats came to avoid. It hadn't, of course, always been so. In a 1941 speech, Franklin Roosevelt offered as succinct a definition of the difference between liberals and
conservatives as I've ever seen--a definition that is as accurate today as it was at that time.

Liberals, he said, believe that "as new conditions and problems arise beyond the power of men and women to meet as individuals, it becomes the duty of
government itself to find new remedies with which to meet them." Conservatives, he continued, believe that "there is no necessity for the government to step in."

Government, Reagan liked to say, is the problem, not the solution. That, even
more precisely than FDR's definition, sums up the difference between the Republican and Democratic ideologies that have evolved in the past thirty years, the schism that separates two divergent views in American politics.

A union as strong as the American people

Only when every American who wants to work can, when every child goes to a good school and has the opportunity to go further, only when health care is available and affordable for every American,
when a lifetime of work guarantees retirement with dignity, and when America is secure at home and our strength abroad is respected, not resented-only then will we have a union as strong as the American people.

Source: Democratic Response to the 2004 State of the Union address
Jan 20, 2004

Shift away from Bush priorities will follow shift in Senate

When Democrats take control of the Senate early in June, they plan swift action on patients’ rights legislation, followed by rapid-fire consideration of other long-stalled Democratic initiatives. Along the way, they intend to sidetrack many of President
Bush’s proposals. Soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D, SD), spelling out some of the practical effects of the new political reality on Capitol Hill, said that Bush priorities such as a missile-defense shield, drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, and expanding nuclear energy will be shelved.

Flexing the political muscle he gained with Vermont Sen. James Jeffords’ decision to leave the Republican Party, Daschle said Democrats will have one-person majorities in committees.
While offering olive branches to the president and GOP Senators, Daschle made it clear that there had been a sea change in Washington. The Senate is expected to reorganize itself upon returning from its Memorial Day recess.

Source: The Salt Lake Tribune, p. A-1
May 28, 2001

Gore ahead by 9 votes, if all current recounts are counted

[Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, speaking to Gore]: There is overwhelming support [among Democrats in Congress] for your effort to ensure that we have a fair and full count. There’s a recognition, of course, that we’ve got a lot of work to do to
obtain that count. We’re encouraged by the numbers that we’ve seen in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach and some of the other numbers around. And we were just given a new tally this morning that if we counted all of the votes that have already been counted
and some of the recount we’d actually be ahead by maybe nine votes. So we’re encouraged by that. I think there’s overwhelming support for your effort and a realization that if we completed the count, there is little doubt that you’d be ahead. So we
wanted to come down and be as emphatic as we can that we support you and your effort and we support this full and fair recount. In order to win, you’ve got to have the votes. We think you’ve got the votes.

Religious affiliation: Catholic.

Daschle : religious affiliation:

The Adherents.com website is an independent project and is not supported by or affiliated with any organization (academic, religious, or otherwise).

What’s an adherent?

The most common definition used in broad compilations of statistical data is somebody who claims to belong to or worship in a religion. This is the self-identification method of determining who is an adherent of what religion, and it is the method used in most national surveys and polls.

Such factors as religious service attendance, belief, practice, familiarity with doctrine, belief in certain creeds, etc., may be important to sociologists, religious leaders, and others. But these are measures of religiosity and are usually not used academically to define a person’s membership in a particular religion. It is important to recognize there are various levels of adherence, or membership within religious traditions or religious bodies. There’s no single definition, and sources of adherent statistics do not always make it clear what definition they are using.